Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Contract / Applicant applied to rent room in Respondent’s flat / Respondent said Applicant could move in, pending payment of bond / Applicant unable to pay bond on agreed date, Respondent agreed to allow more time, then changed mind and withdrew offer to rent room to Applicant / Applicant claimed loss of $1,100.00 / Respondent counterclaimed $950.00 / Held: no valid and enforceable contract between parties / Terms of agreement still being changed when Respondent withdrew offer, and bond as consideration had not been paid / Claim and counterclaim dismissed.

Contract / Co-Applicant engaged by Respondent to supply and install fibre-glass swimming pool / Applicant contracted to carry out earthworks required for pool installation / Pool installation delayed / Installation price increased / Pool colour not the colour chosen by Respondent / Applicant claimed unpaid balance of invoiced amounts / Held: contract terms and conditions allow Applicant to alter or amend estimate costs therefore Respondent is liable to pay Applicant actual invoiced cost of earthworks variation / Applicant entitled to pay reinstatement work incurred by Respondent / Applicant liable to refund price increase to Respondent / Applicant breached contract by supplying different pool to Respondent / Reduction in cost of pool shell charged an appropriate level of damages / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $6,519.63 / Co-applicant ordered to pay Respondent $18,905.50 / Claim allowed in part / Counter-claim allowed in part.

Negligence / Land Transport Act 1988 / Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 / Collision between Applicant and Respondent’s vehicles at a roundabout / Dispute over which party was at fault / Applicant and her insurer claimed the cost of car repairs of $6,017.15 / Held: insufficient reason overall to prefer one account over another / Respondent not liable to pay for damage / Both parties bear the costs of their own repairs / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Applicant had house sharing agreement with the Respondent and another couple / Respondent was leaseholder of flat / Applicant paid $285 per week for room and $25 for expenses / Applicant claimed she was overcharged by Respondent for entire duration of her stay / Applicant said fair rent should be $195 per week / Applicant sought refund of estimated overpaid rent / Applicant also claimed when other couple in the apartment vacated they were refunded $108 from expense account but she did not receive anything / Applicant claimed $1188.00, $108 for surplus expenses and $90 per week overpaid rent for 12 weeks / Held: house sharing agreement was binding agreement between Applicant and Respondent / Once Applicant signed agreement she was bound to pay weekly rent and expenses as stipulated / No misrepresentation from Respondent that induced Applicant into the agreement / Not satisfied that there was any amendment to housing sharing agreement reducing Applicant’s rent / No legal power…

Contract / Fixed Price Building Contract / Applicant entered contract to purchase house and land package from Respondent / Applicant advised some aspects had not been completed at handover / Fridge water was a term in the contract / External stairs were not a term in the contract / No agreement made to vary the contract by removing bifold doors in the kitchen / Applicant not liable for work completed under stairs as no evidence that the change would be on a charge up basis / Held: Applicant successful for a refund of $220.00 paid for fridge water / Balance of claim for compensation struck out

Contract / Respondent booked one of Applicant’s bands for an event for $3,702.50 / Full payment was to be made 14 days prior to performance / Respondent agreed to terms proposed by Applicant / Respondent paid $289.50 deposit / Applicant said it was entitled to full payment / Respondent refused to pay $3,412.70 balance / Respondent said band started late and music was too slow to dance to / Applicant said it was unaware a dance band was required / Applicant sought an order that Respondent was liable to pay $4,206.00, for balance and related costs / Respondent counterclaimed that Applicant was liable to pay damages of $6,800.00 / Held: Respondent entitled to balance / Unable to find Applicant breached contract / Respondent did not specify it wanted a dance band until night of event / Respondent ordered to pay $3,412.70 / Claim allowed and counterclaim dismissed.

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant contracted Respondent to move their household goods / Respondent contracted to provide 20ft container for $3,795 / Applicant's goods overflowed and second container required / Applicant protested rate charged by Respondent for second container and claimed refund / Held: Applicant accepted rate proposed by Respondent in its email and on payment of amount / Contract has been fully performed / No refund awarded / Claim for compensation for damage to or loss of plants cannot be upheld / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Applicant purchased vehicle from Second Respondent in private sale / Applicant arranged for pre-purchase inspection with First Respondent / Five months later engine overheated / Suspected blown head gasket with possibility of cracked head / Applicant claims for a refund of the purchase price / Held: Second Respondent did not mispresent the condition of the vehicle / First Respondent did not fail to carry out the inspection with reasonable care and skill / Applicant could not prove there was any failure on part of either Respondents / Outcome: claim dismissed

Negligence / Dog Control Act 1996 / Applicant took her dogs on leads to a park / Applicant and her dogs encountered Respondent and his dog, who was running loose / Dogs fought / One of the Applicant’s dogs was injured and required vet treatment / Applicants sought compensation for $597.80 vet bills / Held: established that Respondent’s dog injured Applicant’s dog / After dogs fought Applicant’s dog was injured / No other dogs involved in fight / Respondent liable for compensation for vet bills / Respondent ordered to pay $597.80 / Claim allowed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased motorhome from Respondent / Motorhome would not engage gears while travelling and required repairs / Applicant claimed repair and towing costs / Held: evidence showed premature failure of parts in transmission of motorhome / Respondent had opportunity to repair motorhome when notified but failed to be involved / Applicant entitled to all repair costs and consequential loss / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $22,257.95 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Applicant loaned the Respondent $8,600.00 / Applicant claimed the amount repayable was $16,800.00 over seven years at $100.00 per week / Applicant borrowed the sum he lent the Respondent from a finance company / Applicant seeks an order for the total amount of his liability to the finance company / Held: No evidence verifying the Applicant’s arrangement with the finance company / No evidence verifying the loan arrangement between the Applicant and Respondent / Applicant must repay the Respondent remaining $3,100.00 at 100.00 per week / Claim partially granted.

Contract / Respondent submitted a consignment quote request form to Applicant for a designer purse / Form stated that Respondent sold authentic items / Respondent shipped purse to Applicant overseas / Applicant had purse authentication checked where it was found that the purse was not authentic / Applicant originally claimed $8,000.00 but then changed claim to $9,500.00, NZ equivalent of purse’s price / Held: purse was not a genuine designer purse / Respondent breached contract / Respondent ordered to pay $8,000.00, original claim amount / Claim allowed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Civil Aviation Act 1990 / Applicants paid $1,818.48 for two one-way tickets for international travel / Flight was cancelled last minute / Applicants paid $3,366,00 for alternative international flights and $1,351.40 for domestic flights to attend time-dependent meeting /  Respondent indicated that they offered alternative flights at a later date / Respondent suggested Applicants could have rearranged meeting to mitigate losses / Applicants claimed $2,898.92 for extra cost of replacement flights / Held: Respondent failed to prove that it would have been reasonable for Applicants to accept new flights / Meeting could not easily be rescheduled / Applicants entitled to recover $2,898.92 from Respondent for cost of rebooking their flights / Claim granted.